Gender-Based Violence and the Politics of Sex Education in the United States: Expanding Medically Accurate and Comprehensive Policy and Programming

Abstract

Comprehensive sex education (CSE) is recognized globally as a key strategy for promoting adolescent well-being and preventing gender-based violence (GBV). Yet, in the United States, the absence of a federal mandate and deep political division results in inconsistent and often inadequate CSE within and across the 50 states. Our review critically examined U.S. sex education policy and programming research literature in relation to GBV prevention. We also conducted a 50-state policy content analysis of sex education requirements, alongside related political trends and overlapping conservative policies. Discussed as, the “politics of sex education,” our findings reveal that states lacking medically accurate CSE also are more likely to support abstinence-only education, restrict discussions of race and gender in secondary educational settings, and adopt laws limiting reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights. We also found that CSE, when culturally responsive, trauma-informed, and medically accurate, can reduce GBV and equip youth with essential skills necessary to understand consent in intimate relationships. Overall, our literature review and policy clustering underscores how educational content is shaped by broader ideological agendas. Findings point to a dearth of research, particularly concerning educational practice in more conservative political contexts. We conclude with recommendations around the need for coordinated policy reform, educator training, and community collaboration to address GBV through evidenced-based CSE.

1. Introduction

Gender-based violence (GBV) refers to acts of emotional, physical, political, psychological, and/or socio-economic harm that occur due to a person’s identified or perceived gender (Graaff, 2021). Sexual violence is a form of GBV, and it represents a severe public health problem in the United States that prompts short- and long-term negative consequences for health and well-being (Schneider & Hirsch, 2020). Sexual violence is defined as sexual activity, or attempt to obtain a sexual act, by coercion and/or force, and by any person regardless of identity background or relationship between the perpetrator and victim; it can include non-contact acts of a sexual nature, non-physically pressured unwanted penetration, and intentional sexual contact (National Sexual Violence Resource Center, 2025). Types of sexual violence can involve incest, masturbating in public, sexual assault, sexual harassment, sex trafficking and exploitation, rape, unwanted sexual touching or revealing of genitals, among others. Both GBV and sexual violence disproportionately affect women and girls globally and, in the U.S., constitute a violation of human rights law, as well as U.S. federal and individual state law.

GBV fundamentally is driven by power imbalances rooted in heteropatriarchal gender norms that favor masculinity and marginalize femininity. This systemic and structured inequality creates an environment where masculine traits and behaviors are privileged while feminine ones are subordinated and devalued (Cislaghi & Heise, 2020; Lemke & Rogers, 2023). The intersection of dynamics like ability, class, gender, language, and race can create unique forms of socially situated inequity, which underscores the necessity of implementing research-based practices for eliminating GBV. Consequently, it is imperative to develop both comprehensive and customized policies, processes, and procedures that address individual and group vulnerabilities.

The lack of medically accurate and comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) in the U.S. augments GBV and the rates of sexual violence. CSE programming teaches students about sex, as well as critical life skills and prosocial adolescent behaviors related to human anatomy, health, reproduction, sexuality, and consent in relationships (Lemke & Rogers, 2020). This contrasts with abstinence-only education, which is found not only to be ineffective, but potentially harmful by focusing heavily on abstinence until marriage, and limiting the availability of information about sex, including consent in relationship (Dailard, 2002). CSE assists individuals, especially adolescents, with making informed decisions about sexual behavior and health, and equips young children with the basic skills, attitudes, and values to understand their growing bodies and protect them from unwanted relationships (Rollston et al., 2020b). Thus, and as guided by the National Sexuality Education Standards, CSE is viewed by researchers and practitioners alike to be an effective strategy to combat GBV (Schneider & Hirsch, 2020).

CSE plays a pivotal role in preventing GBV, and sexual violence specifically, as it addresses root causes and dynamics of societal violence, especially violence rooted in gender identity and norms. Both international and U.S. domestic research routinely demonstrates that girls and women are sexually bullied, harassed, and victimized at a higher rate than boys and men. For example, out of a national study examining harassment and bullying based on sex, 63% of those negatively affected were girls, whereas 37% were boys (Office for Civil Rights, 2023). Akin to baseline identity-based protections historically afforded by Title IX, CSE programming offers an intervention-based response to said statistics by providing individuals with empirical knowledge and tools to advocate for their own and others’ rights in ways that foster healthier human interaction (Rollston et al., 2020a). In doing so, CSE increases respect for diverse gender identities and sexual orientation, while also challenging cis-heteronormative cultural values that tolerate and sustain GBV, and sexual violence in particular. Thus, the lack of CSE in K-12 schools leaves children and adolescents vulnerable to cycles of violence and exploitation—across contexts and generations (Schneider & Hirsch, 2020).

Despite its documented benefits to public health, including violence elimination, CSE is not mandated by law across the United States. Historic federal policy inroads to GBV intervention and prevention, like Title IX, also do not speak to CSE as a possible solution. While some states, such as California, require schools to provide students with age-appropriate and medically accurate CSE (also covering consent, gender identity, and sexual orientation) multiple states have no such requirements, and/or support abstinence-only education (Thurmond, 2020). Over a dozen states in the U.S. do not mandate sex education but require it to stress abstinence if it is discussed (Guttmacher Institute, 2025). In some states, parents also have the option to opt out of sex education programs, further complicating efforts within and across states. This inconsistency in sex education policy leaves individuals and groups at a heightened risk of misunderstanding critical aspects of consent, health, and identity. This policy landscape calls much into question given rates of GBV among adolescent girls, and that additional student demographic groups such as students with disabilities, also face higher rates of sexual violence, but are less likely to receive CSE, which serves as a protective factor against abuse (Mailhot Amborski et al., 2021).

In the U.S., the existence of sex education in K-12 schools is a contentious issue, reflecting broader political divides rooted in the cultural wars of the 1970s and 1980s. Most recently, this was witnessed in the drastic shift between the Biden and Trump administrations’ focus on Title IX regulations and executive orders concerning violence prevention, gender identity, and healthcare. The Biden Administration sought to improve systemwide responses to sexual assault allegations in educational institutions, increase protections for LGBTQ+ students, and expand access to reproductive healthcare, including affordable, high-quality contraception and family planning services (Smith, 2024). On the other hand, the Trump Administration reversed these actions and actively is removing relevant federal data, educational funding, and rights protections on said issues (Medina et al., 2025). Additionally, absent a CSE mandate, a patchwork of individual state policies, including those that support localized emphasis on abstinence-only and religiously based curricula, leave school districts to determine what is taught, if anything, and how (Mosley, 2025).

Given these policy and ideological divides, the purpose pf our research was to examine how sex education policies and programs in the U.S. influence the prevention of GBV within K-12 public educational settings. We also were interested in understanding the broader ideological landscape that shape sex education policies. Guided by this purpose, our central research question included: How do state-level sex education policies and broader ideological agendas shape the capacity of U.S. schools to prevent gender-based violence and promote student health and well-being? In the following section, we review literature on GBV, relevant policy interventions, and medically accurate CSE as a GBV prevention mechanism.

2. Background

2.1. Gender-Based Violence, Policy, and Practice Interventions

Gender-based violence (GBV) is not a new framework for understanding wider structural violence. Common themes discussed across the social sciences research literature include normative or cultural scripts driving GBV, disproportionate threats of GBV faced by women and girls, and minoritized groups overall, short- and long-term effects, and intervention programming and policies. Enacted in public or private, GBV can include actualized or the threat of economic, mental, physical, psychological, and sexual harm. It can manifest in various forms including bullying, child sexual abuse, femicide, human trafficking, intimate partner violence, revenge porn, sexting and sexist blogging, sexual harassment, sexual violence, and teen dating violence among other documented rights abuses (Lemke & Rogers, 2023). Victims and survivors of GBV are known to experience profound emotional and mental effects including, but not limited to depression, emotional distress, self-blame, social isolation, and suicidality; increased negative physical effects also can include increased likelihood of teenage pregnancy, maternal mortality, restricted access to sexual healthcare, transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, and unsafe abortions (Ochani et al., 2024).

GBV can be perpetrated and experienced by individuals of all backgrounds. Yet, power imbalances between women and men, which are tied to able-bodiedness, poverty, race, and social standing, increase the risk of GBV; addiction, family violence, financial distress, illiteracy, low educational attainment, and poor mental health are among other high-risk factors (Ochani et al., 2024). For example, American Indian women face violence at 2.5 times the rate of non-American Indian women, with 94% experiencing sexual violence in their lifetimes (Benjamin & Gillette, 2021). When compared to white women, Black and American Indian women face significantly higher rates of IPV and sexual violence, as well as lessened access to public health systems and supportive law enforcement response (Richie, 2012). Finally, adolescent girls and young women with disabilities, are up to four times more likely to experience sexual violence than their non-disabled peers (Jones et al., 2012). This includes that adolescent students with disabilities are found to experience sexual violence within school settings (Caldas & Bensy, 2014). These disparities highlight the importance of intersectional frameworks in understanding the root causes and impacts of GBV. Likewise, the short- and long-term effects of GBV underscore a need for culturally responsive, trauma-informed, and medically accurate sexual educational interventions and policies.

2.2. Educational Policy Intervention

GBV educational policy and intervention strategies have evolved significantly over the past six decades—and are shaped by grassroots activism, feminist legal advocacy, public health initiatives, and institutional reforms. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Education Amendments, 1972), for example, increased national awareness of sexual harassment and assault in educational spaces by prohibiting sex-based discrimination in nearly all aspects of federally funded education programs. Importantly, by restricting federal dollars from institutions and training programs where sexually discriminatory practices occurred, Title IX extended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Equal Pay Act (1963), to educational workers. The Jeanne Cleary Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (1990) buttressed Title IX by increasing campus accountability concerning crime data and reporting, and through oversight mechanisms such as student aid suspension.

Though Title IX discouraged sexual discrimination and brought about gains for gender equality within educational spaces, the enforcement mechanisms of Title IX are critiqued on various grounds. These include but are not limited to failures of institutional self-reporting, limited funding, staffing capacity, and as discussed in further detail in section four, the partisan weaponization of Title IX by conservative political groups (Lemke, 2020; Stromquist, 2013; Wies, 2015). It is worth noting here that in addition to Title IX, other landmark federal policy aiming to prevent GBV and assist victims include for example, the Violence Against Women Act (1994) (VAWA) and the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (2009) (HCPA). Reauthorized four times since 1994, VAWA acknowledged domestic and sexual violence as critical public health issues. Standing to date as one of the most comprehensive pieces of federal legislation to address GBV, VAWA allocates funding for victim services, legal assistance, and prevention efforts—and in most recent reauthorization, extended protections to LGBTQ+ individuals, American Indian women, undocumented immigrants, and survivors in digital contexts (Office of Tribal Justice, 2023). Similar in its more comprehensive approach, HCPA expanded federal hate-crime law, including data collection, to include crimes committed because of a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

The Supreme Court ruled that individuals can sue school districts for damages resulting from sexual harassment and school administrators also can be held liable if they fail to address harassment of students by employees and/or other students (Laible, 1997). As a result, and in addition to individual state policy mandates, U.S. school districts have instituted localized policies and programming to address GBV through the promotion of student safety and healthy relationships. Such policies and programming typically are implemented across four key areas: bullying prevention (Yerger & Gehret, 2011), bystander intervention (Edwards et al., 2019, sexual harassment education (Miller et al., 2018), and as discussed in further detail in section three, sex education programming. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories have laws addressing bullying and sexual harassment, most of which require schools to develop policies and procedures for handling in-person and online incidents (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 2019). Some states also integrate bullying and harassment education into curricula, or require professional development for educators. Importantly, though federal anti-bullying law does not exist, bullying based on protected categories like disability, sex or race may constitute harassment under federal civil rights law, triggering legal responsibilities for schools (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 2019). Bystander education is a growing area of violence prevention, especially in middle and high schools, and can be implemented in coordination with local domestic violence agencies or public health departments (Coker et al., 2020). Despite widespread adoption of bullying, harassment, and bystander programming, there is limited comprehensive data on district-level program use, and the consistency and effectiveness of these interventions differ widely across regions.

2.3. Sex Education as Policy and Practice-Based Intervention

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] et al.’s (2018) guidelines state that children should learn to recognize that bullying and violence are wrong and also be taught that abuse, including intimate partner violence and sexual assault, are violations of human rights. According to the World Health Organization (2023), comprehensive sex education (CSE) offers young people reliable, age-appropriate knowledge about their sexuality and reproductive health, which is vital for their overall well-being and development. Furthermore, CSE advocates consent in intimate relationships and thus equips students with knowledge about their rights and helps them understand acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, making them less vulnerable to GBV, including sexual violence (Rollston et al., 2020b; World Health Organization, 2023).

Viewed through international humanitarian and comparative educational lenses, the United States often falls behind international human rights standards and the practices of comparable high-income countries for both GBV prevention and CSE as an intervention. Globally, frameworks such as the United Nations General Assembly (1979) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] et al.’s (2018) International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education emphasize the importance of women’s and girls’ rights to education, information access, and reproductive healthcare. While neither CEDAW nor UNESCO explicitly identifies medically accurate, age-appropriate, and rights-based sex education as a fundamental component of violence prevention, The Journey Towards Comprehensive Sexuality Education (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] et al., 2021) makes a compelling case for the role of sex education in promoting gender equality, preventing GBV and sexual violence, and supporting adolescent well-being.

Notably, the U.S. remains one of only a few countries that have not ratified CEDAW, signaling a lack of national commitment to gender equality under international law (Women’s Congressional Policy Institute, 2025). Furthermore, CSE is extensively endorsed and implemented across Europe, resulting in reduced incidences of adolescent pregnancy and STIs. Conversely, North America exhibits variability, with Canada adopting a more comprehensive model than the United States (Sekhar et al., 2024). Thus, while the United States has made meaningful strides through legislation like VAWA and Title IX, its fragmented, piecemeal state-level approach means that it lags in comparison to the comprehensive and medically accurate models adopted by peer nations.

2.4. Comprehensive Sex Education

In a U.S. context, CSE offers developmentally appropriate, culturally affirming, and science-based information programs starting in early childhood and continuing through adolescence. Typical CSE programming covers gender identity, human development, personal skills, relationships, and sexual behaviors, including abstinence and contraception as options, sexual health, and societal and cultural influences (Rollston et al., 2020b). Research demonstrates that CSE helps to lower rates of teen pregnancy and reduce sexually transmitted infections (STIs), as well as increase responsible decision-making regarding sexual behavior, positive attitudes, and critical thinking about human sexuality (Kim et al., 2023).

Initially founded in 1968 as the Center for Family Planning Program Development within the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, today, the Guttmacher Institute is a leading U.S. nonpartisan social science research organization that promotes public health, family planning, and equitable access to birth control and reproductive education. Regarding sex education, the Guttmacher Institute tracks, categorizes, and analyzes state-level requirements for mandated sex and HIV education. It also tracks if the programming is required to be age-appropriate, medically accurate, and/or include discussions of abstinence, consent, contraception, gender identity, and sexual orientation. For example, 27 U.S. states across the Northeast, West Coast, Midwest, and the District of Columbia (DC), mandate either sex education, HIV education, or both, with 19 of those states and DC requiring both; largely concentrated in the Northeast and West, 18 states require the information to be medically accurate, with urban and coastal regions more likely than other areas to require that instruction be age-appropriate; finally, reflecting regional divides in educational policy, many states in the South and parts of the Midwest do not mandate medical accuracy (Guttmacher Institute, 2025).

Most states require schools to involve parents in sex or HIV education by either obtaining their permission, notifying them, or allowing them to opt their children out of the lessons. Though only 11 states and DC specifically mandate consent education, there is increased national consensus on violence prevention with 30 states and DC requiring education on healthy relationships. Such curricula include teaching students about consent, ways to assert personal boundaries, and how to refuse unwanted sexual advances (Guttmacher Institute, 2025). Programs like FLASH (King County, 2025), Rights, Respect, Responsibility (3Rs) (Advocates for Youth, 2025), and SafeBAE (2024) are examples of evidence-based sex education curricula that include components on healthy relationships, boundaries, and communication skills.

2.5. Abstinence-Only Education

Unlike CSE, abstinence-only education emphasizes that the best way to avoid pregnancy and STIs is to have sex within marriage (Dunn et al., 2014). Rooted in traditionalist, conservative, and cis-heteronormative values concerning personal lifestyle, marriage, and family, abstinence-only approaches exclude information on abortion, contraception, condom use, and discussions about consent (Ott & Santelli, 2007). Signed into law under President Reagan, the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) of 1981, also known as the “chastity law,” exists as an essential turning point in religious and conservative efforts to redirect federal funding investments toward abstinence-only initiatives to prevent teen pregnancy (Dailard, 2001).

In Bowen v. Kendrick (1988) the Supreme Court ruled that under the AFLA, religious organizations, so long as they avoided direct religious content, could receive federal grants for adolescent pregnancy prevention services. Since then, notable studies found that abstinence-only programs lack evidence of effectiveness in reducing teen pregnancy and STIs (Kirby, 2007, 2008; Trenholm et al., 2007; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2006; Waxman, 2004). Legal challenges, such as those from the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] (2025), also argue that abstinence-only education programs lack empirical evidence and violate the separation of church and state. Still, four federal programs, including Teen Pregnancy Prevention, Personal Responsibility Education Program, the Title V Sexual Risk Avoidance Education Program, and the General Departmental Sexual Risk Avoidance Education Program continues to invest in abstinence-based programming with allocated funds ranging from $98 to $110 million annually (Congressional Research Service [CRS], 2024). Similar in name and goals, these programs are designed to support youth in setting such as schools, afterschool programs, and community organizations. Funding is awarded to a range of recipients, including state agencies, nonprofit organizations, and other eligible groups (Congressional Research Service [CRS], 2024). Given research documents that 57% of teenagers have had sex, abstinence-only programs are criticized for being less effective as they do not significantly prevent risky sexual behavior or reduce teen pregnancy rates—in particular, the programming is critiqued for promoting guilt and shame around premarital sex and stigmatizing prosocial adolescent sexual exploration, particularly among minoritized youth, as inherently wrong, thereby contributing to higher risks for mental health issues, substance abuse, and STIs (Guttmacher Institute, 2021a).

3. Materials and Methods

Critical educational research and critical qualitative inquiry include, among others, critical, decolonial, intersectional, and post-structural methodological orientations. Our research aligns with the critical research and inquiry tradition (Young & Diem, 2024) and is situated within the critical policy studies paradigm (Diem et al., 2019). Scholarship within this paradigm is focused on gaps between policy talk/text from implementable practice, as well as power differentials within systems, structures, and actor decision-making that contribute to disparities in the distribution of social provision—increasingly important methodological considerations in a post-truth era (Wolgemuth et al., 2018). Our framing of this research also is considerate of landmark scholarship on the explicit and hidden assumptions in sex education curriculum (Sears, 1992) and research underscoring the inadequacies of such curricula and policy in addressing identity diversity within classrooms (Allen, 2021; Goldfarb & Lieberman, 2021; Mayo, 2022; Quinlivan, 2018). Finally, our work is influenced by Black and Chicana feminist qualitative methodological frameworks (Delgado Bernal et al., 2023; Evans-Winters, 2019); this includes interdisciplinary and intergenerational plural feminisms that offer a rebuttal to an emergent authoritarian U.S. politics (Lemke et al., 2025).

Our review and policy critique drew from feminist social science textual and content analysis strategies as described by Reinharz (1992). At the outset, this meant establishing a shared recognition of how empirical literature can reflect context-specific conditions and lived experiences, while other literature or cultural artifacts (here written records in the form of policy texts) can reproduce the experience of those who produced it, and in turn mediate and affect the experience of others.1 This method also prompted the development of a shared research purpose that centered on identifying themes and gaps in existent literature, identification of a specific phenomenon—here how GBV relates to CSE thereby also furthering the rationale for study—and to this end, recommendation of educational policy and practice interventions. In this way, our individual and collective praxes is not merely the application of academic processes to political issues outside of research, but also accounts for and aims to enact a critical and intersectional feminist politics within scholarly practice itself.

Importantly, cultural artifacts are the result of “individual activity, social organization, technology, and cultural patterns,” with four types of materials predominant in feminist study including: written records, narratives and visual texts, material culture, and behavioral residues; these materials then consider how artifacts are produced “by women, about women, or for women…or by men, about men or for men, or any combination of these (Reinharz, 1992, p. 147). Similarly, feminist policy research centers gender as a primary analytic, alongside other identity markers, within policy texts, processes, and implementation (Marshall, 1999).

To conduct the literature review, we used the University at Buffalo Libraries main search engine and the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC). Search term criteria included peer reviewed journal articles from the last 15 years, utilized terms such as: “abortion and reproductive healthcare,” “abstinence-only education,” “comprehensive and medically accurate sex education,” “gender-based violence and youth,” and “Title IX and gender-based violence.” Importantly, we did not conduct a systematic review nor did we interview legislators who work on GBV and/or CSE policy. Still our theoretical approach, shared research processes, and incorporation of multidisciplinary and field expertise contribute to analysis-based consistency, reliability, and trustworthiness that allows our review to offer explanation and recommendations for needed research and practice-based intervention (Miles et al., 2014).

To conduct the fifty-state policy review, and identify necessary cultural artifacts, or policy texts, we utilized Google search, a public domain engine search. Search term criteria included the terms listed previously, as well as terms such as: “critical race theory (CRT) curriculum ban,” “Democratic Party education platform,” “LGBTQ+ and gender studies curriculum ban,” and “Project 2025 education platform.” As identified in our tables and figure, data sources were chosen for subject matter reliability in performing state-by-state comparison. We excluded editorial publications and instead utilized intergovernmental, non-governmental, and nonprofit reports for current statistical data. We also excluded data sources that were outdated and not publicly available to ensure that we used the most current and accessible information. For example, the ACLU, Center for Reproductive Rights, and Guttmacher Institute have long histories of conducting large-scale quantitative and qualitative data collection, engaged advocacy efforts, and public reporting on reproductive health and human rights law, among other related topics. As another example, sources like the Death Penalty Information Center and the World Population Review were selected for their nonpartisan approach.

Though not a two-party nation, since the turn of the twentieth century the Democratic and Republican parties represent the two major political and ideological factions in the United States. Though there is within party disagreement on key issues, it is generally understood that the Democratic Party favors federal regulation and progressive taxation, expansion of rights for historically underserved groups, including protecting women’s access to abortion and LGBTQ+ rights, and investment in public education, healthcare, and other social safety net programming. On the contrary, the Republican Party promotes deregulation, a free market approach to education and healthcare, expansion of the carceral state, and the elimination of reproductive rights and legal protections for historically minoritized populations.

The conservative indicators included in this analysis, therefore, highlight the broader ideological landscape shaping sex education policies in the U.S. Indicators such as abortion bans/restrictions, anti-CRT or anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, and corporal punishment or the death penalty reflect governance focused on moral and punitive approaches, with Republican votes serving as a strong indicator of the political ideologies within those states. Together, these measures situate sex education within its wider policy environment, rather than analyzing sex education as an isolated issue. Because the U.S. education system is highly decentralized, with states and local districts holding primary authority over policy decision, approaches to sex education vary significantly across regions and between states. This decentralization makes it critical to analyze sex education alongside other state-level policies to fully understand the ideological forces at work.

To adapt the data into the tables and figures, each source was reviewed to collect current and relevant information surrounding conservative policies. The relevant data was coded into categories for the tables (e.g., banned/restricted, legal/not legal). An online mapping tool (MapChart) was used for visual mapping with color codes being chosen to reflect a conservative-progressive policy gradient. Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) was not used to generate table data nor to interpret research literature nor policy data.

In the following section, we present our findings concerning the “politics of sex education” in the United States. We present information on U.S. political party discourse on GBV and CSE, and the effect political ideology has on U.S. sex education discourses and state-level policy. Based on our review and analysis of recent CSE policy developments and those within content adjacent policy arenas, we map trends in Table 1 and Table 2 and Figure 1. We conclude with recommendations for research and practice, which are grounded in the assertion that medically accurate CSE is an essential mechanism to increase health, sexual well-being, and reproductive autonomy, while simultaneously assisting with GBV prevention and elimination.

4. Results: The Politics of Sex Education

Though research regarding the causes and effects of GBV are clear, the policy debate concerning CSE is divisive and primarily shaped by the ideological views of liberal and conservative factions in the United States. Liberal entities generally advocate medically accurate CSE, viewing this approach as necessary to improve public health and prevent GBV, and sexual violence specifically; conversely, more conservative and religious factions tend to support abstinence-only, or abstinence-only until marriage (AOUM) education, which promote traditional family values and parental authority over school curricula (Merriam, 2007). This political divide has serious educational and social policy implications, which in turn affect broader public health and gender parity (Hall et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2023).

4.1. Liberal Politics of Sex Education

This normative ideological division is evident within U.S. political party articulations of sex education and views of gender identity. The Democratic Party historically has promoted CSE based on public health research and evidence-based policies that aim to prevent teen pregnancy and STIs (Wetzstein, 2005). More broadly, the Party also argued that attempts to ban books and exclude discussions on homophobia, racism, and sexism are part of a broader assault on civil rights, including those related to educational access, healthcare, and reproductive planning (Camera, 2022). In 2009, for example, Representative Barbara Lee and Senator Frank Lautenberg co-sponsored the unsuccessful Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Bill, which proposed $206 million in federal funding for CSE to reduce teen pregnancy and HIV. At the time, this fiscal allotment would have equaled previous funding designations under President George W. Bush for abstinence-only education (Dailard, 2002).

A more recent example of progressive legislation to advance CSE is the Real Education and Access for Healthy Youth Act (2023). Referred to the Subcommittee on Health, if passed, this bill would direct the Department of Health and Human Services to develop grants to fund sex education and sexual health services for young people aged 10 to 29 in partnership with the Department of Education. These services would need to provide high-quality sex education that meets educational requirements, covers a wide range of sex and sexuality subjects, investigates values and beliefs, and prepares young people to manage relationships and sexual health. Grants also would be given to youth-serving groups and healthcare entities to provide sexual health services to underprivileged youth through the 340B drug savings program. Importantly, the legislation would repeal AOUM programming and remove prohibitions on federally funded sexual education programs.

4.2. Conservative Politics of Sex Education

The Republican Party historically has supported funding for abstinence-only sex education, with notable shifts around programming tied to the welfare overhauls of the late 1980s and 1990s. Republican Party efforts to remove regulations and scale back key components of the social welfare state involved the embrace of AOUM programming as the sole strategy for addressing adolescent sexual and reproductive health (Hall et al., 2016). The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996) for example, provided $50 million annually for abstinence-only education programs. Based on the idea that parents are best suited to guide their children in moral and sexual matters, religious conservatives also supported increased parental choice and control over K-12 curricula, including sex education (Kovaleski, 2019).

Also established in 1996, Title V of the Sexual Risk Avoidance Education (SRAE) program (currently managed by the Family and Youth Services Bureau within the USDHHS), has received $75 million in annual funding since 2017 and supports grantees in 44 states and five territories (Guttmacher Institute, 2021b). Most recently, $49.2 million in Title V SRAE grants were awarded for the period of 1 October 2024, through 30 September 2026, reaching 36 states and territories (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 2025). Additionally, there is the General Departmental Sexual Risk Avoidance Education (SRAE) program, also known as the Discretionary SRAE program, which supports educational initiatives that promote abstaining from nonmarital sexual activity, with an emphasis on using evidence-based methods to highlight the advantages of avoiding risky behaviors. The Discretionary SRAE program authorized by Congress in 2016, provides competitive federal grants to community-based organizations rather than state governments.

Thus, current federal sex education funding primarily is administered through either the Title V state or Discretionary SRAE programs. Despite differences in structure and operation, these programs have a sexual risk avoidance paradigm that promotes abstinence from premarital sex. While curricula must be medically correct, they do not provide CSE since they limit the demonstration of contraceptive techniques and frequently exclude broader information on sexual health, contraception, and LGBTQ+ identity (Guttmacher Institute, 2021b). The continuation of these programs and funding allotments demonstrate the federal emphasis on abstinence-only education over comprehensive approaches. Baked into this more conservative federal approach, which as previously discussed also is found in state-level approaches, are limitations placed on discussions of GBV, sexual violence, and where relevant, gender identity. More recently, as witnessed under the Obama through Trump administrations, there is a deepened divide within historic cultural war politics. These administrations volleyed initiatives, Dear Colleague Letters, and executive orders to achieve their aims and to varying success—with certain actions prompting harmful consequences for students and their families.

4.3. Contemporary Normative Politics

During both the Obama and Biden Administrations, policies made incremental progress, such as expanding Title IX protections for victims and including additional harms based on gender identity. Through Dear Colleague Letters, the Obama Administration extended protections for sexual assault victims and expanded the rights of transgender students by clarifying and redefining language used in Title IX (U.S. Department of Justice [USDOJ] and U.S. Department of Education [USDOE], 2016). Though rescinded during the first Trump Administration, in 2024, the Biden Administration again expanded Title IX protections to include, “sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy/related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity” (Lyerly, 2024, p. 4). However, a series of court decisions, including the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Department of Education v. Louisiana (2024), limited the reach of the Biden era Title IX regulations. In 2023, the Biden Administration also introduced the U.S. National Plan to End Gender-Based Violence, a landmark policy that if enacted, would advance a cross-agency strategy rooted in public health, equity, and community-driven innovation (Gender Policy Council, 2023). This plan would prioritize culturally specific services, investment in prevention infrastructure, and recognition of GBV as a systemic issue tied to social determinants of health. In the same vein, the proposed Real Education and Access for Healthy Youth Act (2023), if enacted, would modernize sex education by promoting inclusive, evidence-based, and youth-centered curricula while eliminating outdated abstinence-only mandates.

Conversely, the first Trump Administration amplified cultural resistance to medically accurate CSE and gender inclusive education. For example, the U.S. Department of Justice [USDOJ] and U.S. Department of Education [USDOE] (2016) Dear Colleague Letter affirmed that states and local districts were given the right to define sex as one’s “biological sex” (p. 1), thus revoking federal protection for transgender students under Title IX. This rollback of rights, coupled with toxic political rhetoric, led to increased GBV towards transgender students (Albright & Hurd, 2019). Such violence is “associated with a myriad of adverse outcomes, including shorter life expectancy, poorer physical health, and lower overall self-reported quality of life” (Albright & Hurd, 2019, p. 4). Exec. Order No. 13950 (2020) on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping also rebuffed copious social science research that evidences historic structural and institutional violence against specific groups in the U.S. Under the guise of equality, fairness, and nationalism (the document evokes President Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr.), this executive order sought to deny federal funds to educational institutions attempting to teach anti-racist and anti-sexist content; in a trickle-down manner, it also empowered Republican-held states to pass legislation that banned K-12 content related to gender and race, effectively prompting the erasure of certain identities and experiences (Jayakumar & Kohli, 2023). Furthermore, in 2020 the USDHHS announced that the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program created under President Obama to fund CSE, would prioritize programs that teach abstinence—with funding then directed to programs that implement either a “sexual risk reduction model” or a “sexual risk avoidance model” (Hellmann, 2018).

Current Administration policies mirror those of the first, with regressive changes made to the functioning, staff, and public facing orientation of Cabinet departments. Recent executive orders reestablished traditional definitions of gender by equating it to biological sex and admonishing any acknowledgement of “gender ideology” in schools by withholding federal funds, eliminating federal recognition of gender identity, and restricting access to gender-affirming care. These orders also dismantled existing protections for LGBTQ+ individuals and rolled back diversity, equity, and inclusion or DEI initiatives across federal agencies (see: Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government (Exec. Order No. 14168, 2025) and Ending Radical Indoctrination in K12 Schooling (Exec. Order No. 14190, 2025).

The Trump Administration maintains its support for abstinence-only programming, arguing that the most effective way to address teen pregnancy is to encourage teens to abstain from sex (Fox, 2018). Notably, the roadmap for the current Administration was mapped in, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise—commonly known as Project 2025 (The Heritage Foundation, 2023). Despite then former President Trump’s claim of “no ties to Project 2025” (The Washington Post, 2024), policies proposed in Project 2025 actively are being implemented within executive orders and across federal agencies. This policy trajectory is little surprise in policy circles, given the Heritage Foundation is a major conservative think tank, and many individuals who worked with the first Trump Administration also authored Project 2025.

Embodied within Project 2025 and now found across federal government websites, programming, and policies—is the contemporary religious conservative vision of public education, which aims to strengthen Judeo-Christian ideology and parental rights while simultaneously returning schools to a “back-to-the-basics” regime that removes federal regulations and provisions for student poverty and increases state control over public education management (Republican National Committee [RNC], 2024). Through a policy agenda reminiscent of Reagan era culture war politics, the Trump Administration aims to refocus public schools on core subjects—such as reading, history, science, and math—while empowering parents with greater influence over their children’s education—including a “first amendment right to pray and read the bible in school” (Republican National Committee [RNC], 2024, p. 13). Additionally, aligned with the 2024 presidential campaign promise to, “cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, radical gender ideology, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children” (Republican National Committee [RNC], 2024, p. 5), the current Administration aims to reorient schools to equip children for success in the workforce and to prevent racial discrimination in the form of anti-white bias in public education (see: Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunities for Families (Exec. Order No. 14191, 2025) and Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities (Exec. Order No. 14242, 2025)).

4.4. Conservative Intersections with Abstinence-Only Education Politics

A neoconservative re-envisioning of the purpose of K-12 public education, including limits on sex education, violence prevention, and akin programming, is aggressively being implemented through executive orders. This supports both a trickle-down and trickle-up policy and political effects on Republican-held states and conservative-leaning school districts within Democratically held states. To date, 20 states passed legislation restricting race education in K-12 settings, with anti-CRT legislation advancing in nine additional states (World Population Review, 2025), including the removing of DEI offices and initiatives in Texas (Texas Legislature, 2023). There are currently 598 anti-LGBTQ+ policies written across the United States (American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU], 2025), with one of the most notable being Florida’s, “Don’t Say Gay” Bill, which prohibits “classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity” (Stanley et al., 2023). A subsequent settlement challenging the Florida law clarified that topics surrounding LGBTQ+ topics can be discussed in schools but not included in the formal curriculum (Pineda & Merchan, 2024).

Our 50-state content analysis found that states with abstinence-only or abstinence-stressing sex education policies have significant overlap with conservative policies such as abortion bans and restrictions, corporal punishment in schools, the death penalty, and legislation aimed at dismantling CRT and LGBTQ+ initiatives, as shown in Table 1. States that do not have abstinence-stressing sex education have less conversative policies, favoring Democratic candidates and ideologies, as demonstrated in Table 2. Out of the states with abstinence-stressing sex education, nine have all of the conservative policies, with only one of the non-abstinence-stressing states having the same. Figure 1 provides an illustration of each state’s number of conservative indicators corresponding to the variables in Table 1 and Table 2.

Figure 1. Conservative Indicators Present by State. Note. The conservative indicators included are those listed in Table 1 and Table 2. Data adapted from the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] (2025), Center for Reproductive Rights (2025), Death Penalty Information Center (2025), Guttmacher Institute (2025), Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (2025), The Associated Press (2025), World Population Review (2025), and Yeban (2024).

Figure 1. Conservative Indicators Present by State. Note. The conservative indicators included are those listed in Table 1 and Table 2. Data adapted from the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] (2025), Center for Reproductive Rights (2025), Death Penalty Information Center (2025), Guttmacher Institute (2025), Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (2025), The Associated Press (2025), World Population Review (2025), and Yeban (2024).

Table 1. Overlap of Abstinence-Stressing Sex Education and Conservative Indicators by State.

States with Abstinence-Stressing Sex Education	2024 Republican Presidential Vote	Abortion Banned or Restricted	Death Penalty	Legal Corporal Punishment in Schools	Anti-CRT Legislation	Anti-LGBTQ+ Legislation
Alabama	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Arizona *	✓		✓	✓
Arkansas *	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Delaware
Florida *	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Georgia	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Hawaii
Idaho	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓
Indiana	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Kentucky	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓
Louisiana	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓
Maine
Michigan	✓
Minnesota
Mississippi	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Missouri	✓		✓	✓
Nebraska *	✓	✓	✓			✓
New Jersey
North Carolina	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓
North Dakota	✓	✓			✓	✓
Ohio	✓		✓ a
Oklahoma	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Oregon			✓ a
Rhode Island
South Carolina	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
South Dakota *	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Tennessee	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Texas	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Utah	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓
Washington
Wisconsin	✓	✓

Note. Abstinence-stressing sex education includes states that are considered abstinence-only and abstinence-“plus” sex education, which emphasizes abstinence but also includes information regarding contraception (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2018). Data adapted from the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] (2025), Center for Reproductive Rights (2025), Death Penalty Information Center (2025), Guttmacher Institute (2025), Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (2025), The Associated Press (2025), World Population Review (2025), and Yeban (2024). * States without sex education or HIV education mandates. ^a Death penalty states with a gubernatorial hold on executions.

Table 1. Overlap of Abstinence-Stressing Sex Education and Conservative Indicators by State.

States with Abstinence-Stressing Sex Education	2024 Republican Presidential Vote	Abortion Banned or Restricted	Death Penalty	Legal Corporal Punishment in Schools	Anti-CRT Legislation	Anti-LGBTQ+ Legislation
Alabama	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Arizona *	✓		✓	✓
Arkansas *	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Delaware
Florida *	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Georgia	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Hawaii
Idaho	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓
Indiana	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Kentucky	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓
Louisiana	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓
Maine
Michigan	✓
Minnesota
Mississippi	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Missouri	✓		✓	✓
Nebraska *	✓	✓	✓			✓
New Jersey
North Carolina	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓
North Dakota	✓	✓			✓	✓
Ohio	✓		✓ a
Oklahoma	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Oregon			✓ a
Rhode Island
South Carolina	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
South Dakota *	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Tennessee	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Texas	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Utah	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓
Washington
Wisconsin	✓	✓

Note. Abstinence-stressing sex education includes states that are considered abstinence-only and abstinence-“plus” sex education, which emphasizes abstinence but also includes information regarding contraception (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2018). Data adapted from the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] (2025), Center for Reproductive Rights (2025), Death Penalty Information Center (2025), Guttmacher Institute (2025), Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (2025), The Associated Press (2025), World Population Review (2025), and Yeban (2024). * States without sex education or HIV education mandates. ^a Death penalty states with a gubernatorial hold on executions.

Table 2. Overlap of Non-Abstinence-Stressing Sex Education and Conservative Indicators by State.

States with Non-Abstinence-Stressing Sex Education	2024 Republican Presidential Vote	Abortion Banned or Restricted	Death Penalty	Legal Corporal Punishment in Schools	Anti-CRT Legislation	Anti-LGBTQ+ Legislation
Alaska *	✓
California			✓ a
Colorado *
Connecticut
Illinois
Iowa	✓	✓			✓	✓
Kansas	✓		✓	✓		✓
Maryland
Massachusetts *
Montana	✓		✓		✓	✓
Nevada	✓		✓			✓
New Hampshire					✓
New Mexico
New York
Pennsylvania	✓	✓	✓ a
Vermont
Virginia *					✓
West Virginia	✓	✓				✓
Wyoming *	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓

Note. Non-abstinence-stressing sex education includes states that cover abstinence but do not present it as preferable to sexual activity (Guttmacher Institute, 2025) and those that have no state mandates for abstinence instruction. Data adapted from the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] (2025), Center for Reproductive Rights (2025), Death Penalty Information Center (2025), Guttmacher Institute (2025), Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (2025), The Associated Press (2025), World Population Review (2025), and Yeban (2024). * States without sex or HIV education mandates. ^a Death penalty states with a gubernatorial hold on executions.

Table 2. Overlap of Non-Abstinence-Stressing Sex Education and Conservative Indicators by State.

States with Non-Abstinence-Stressing Sex Education	2024 Republican Presidential Vote	Abortion Banned or Restricted	Death Penalty	Legal Corporal Punishment in Schools	Anti-CRT Legislation	Anti-LGBTQ+ Legislation
Alaska *	✓
California			✓ a
Colorado *
Connecticut
Illinois
Iowa	✓	✓			✓	✓
Kansas	✓		✓	✓		✓
Maryland
Massachusetts *
Montana	✓		✓		✓	✓
Nevada	✓		✓			✓
New Hampshire					✓
New Mexico
New York
Pennsylvania	✓	✓	✓ a
Vermont
Virginia *					✓
West Virginia	✓	✓				✓
Wyoming *	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓

Note. Non-abstinence-stressing sex education includes states that cover abstinence but do not present it as preferable to sexual activity (Guttmacher Institute, 2025) and those that have no state mandates for abstinence instruction. Data adapted from the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] (2025), Center for Reproductive Rights (2025), Death Penalty Information Center (2025), Guttmacher Institute (2025), Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (2025), The Associated Press (2025), World Population Review (2025), and Yeban (2024). * States without sex or HIV education mandates. ^a Death penalty states with a gubernatorial hold on executions.

5. Discussion

Medically accurate comprehensive sex education (CSE) equips students with essential knowledge and skills pertinent to consent, healthy relationships, personal boundaries, and violence free relationships. Based on our review of the research, as well as our 50-state review and policy analysis, the following section maps recommendations for age appropriate CSE programming in K-12 public schools. Specifically, these recommendations are premised on bolstering established reporting mechanisms where GBV is concerned, as well as improving or implementing social emotional learning (SEL), culturally responsive, and trauma-informed wrap around support systems and educator trainings.

Our research found that absent a federal mandate, sex education often fails to address GBV, excludes identity diversity within classrooms, including the experiences of LGBTQ+ youth, and can increase unnecessary barriers to accessing empirically sound and medically accurate information about sexuality, health, and well-being. Addressing GBV within K-12 educational institutions requires comprehensive federal and state policy frameworks that prioritize student safety, education, and support. To be effective, policies and programming must concentrate on prevention, reporting, intervention, and recovery, with particular emphasis on vulnerable populations, such as adolescent girls from minoritized communities and girls with disabilities who face an elevated risk of violence. To operationalize these priorities, it is critical to distinguish how each stage of prevention functions in practice.

To clarify the scope of prevention, intervention, and post-incident support, we support the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (2004, 2019) public health model, which categorizes sexual violence interventions into three levels: primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. Primary prevention occurs before violence happens and seeks to stop first-time perpetration and victimization through education, culture change, and community engagement. Secondary prevention, or intervention, involves immediate responses to disclosures of violence, including reporting, safety planning, and short-term support. Tertiary prevention, or post-incident support, focuses on accountability, long-term healing, and systemic learning to prevent recurrence. To strengthen primary prevention, schools must move beyond reactive responses and embed GBV education into everyday learning. This means, for example, that schools should focus on broader structural and cultural initiatives such as adopting gender-equity language in school policies, creating student-led GBV prevention clubs, and engaging families and community partners through workshops that challenge harmful gender stereotypes (Hooker et al., 2021).

Our findings demonstrate that educator knowledge gaps about GBV, policies, and reporting practices can increase rates of violence and associated negative effects for women, girls, and minoritized populations (Coker et al., 2020; Grant et al., 2019; Lemke, 2019; Lemke et al., 2021; Lemke & Rogers, 2020, 2023; Lichty et al., 2008). The recognition of the complexity of the victimization experience and the need for policy, programming, and services that are victim- and survivor-centered is recognized widely by researchers and practitioners alike. Importantly, in the U.S., elementary and secondary schools are governed by Title IX. Yet, like policies concerning CSE, those governing GBV and thus accompanying rights of students and responsibilities of educators, are unclear and inconsistent—with some districts not addressing violence but instead placing this topic under bullying and/or sexual harassment curricula (Lemke & Rogers, 2020; Lichty et al., 2008).

Our findings also indicate that inconsistent policy across the U.S. leaves students with less knowledge and resources dependent on the state in which they reside. Additionally, without clear guidelines, student safety and protection are unevenly distributed, and are shaped by local politics and institutional discretion. Such ambiguous policy structures allow for disparate enforcement and the perpetuation of structural harm in educational systems (Brissett et al., 2025). When policy and guidance is lacking, schools may unintentionally perpetuate unequal access to information and assistance, making geography and ideology significant factors in determining whether students obtain correct information and worthwhile preventative instruction. In short, policy gaps and slippages make it possible for destructive actions to continue unchecked, weaken accountability, and can promote cultures of silence regarding violence (Astor & Benbenishty, 2022). We also know that historically underserved and minoritized students also bear the brunt of such policy vacuums, in effect creating a form of educational structural violence (Clark, 2022) wherein educational negligence sustains vulnerability and exclusion in schools rather than just being an administrative flaw.

To reinforce public school systems where medically accurate CSE exists, or in lieu of programming absence, our findings support increased GBV reporting protocols and robust confidentiality protections. Schools and districts should have readily known and accessible anonymous online, hotline, and in-person reporting channels. These channels require confidentiality to safeguard the identity of those who report, witness, and/or provide information regarding GBV, to mitigate the fear of retaliation for reporting, and to encourage students to report incidents overall. Designated and identifiable personnel must be trained in reporting, including the establishment of secure documentation methods compliant with privacy laws like the Family Education Rights Protection Act (FERPA) of 1974 (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 1974), which protects the privacy of student education records. Given research finds that educators desire additional training on sensitive topics like sexual violence, and especially for vulnerable populations (Lemke et al., 2021), professional development also must include discussion of identifiable signs and effects of GBV, including but not limited to depression and social isolation. Moreover, regular reviews of reporting protocols, with opportunities for anonymous student feedback, will assist schools in adapting and strengthening their approach to GBV, particularly in settings where CSE is lacking, thereby building trust and fostering a safe and welcoming environment for all students.

As abstinence-only education continues to dominate sex education policy in much of the United States (World Health Organization, 2023; Kaiser Family Foundation, 2018), efforts to prevent GBV are forced to operate within a politically charged environment. The task, therefore, for educators is to safeguard student well-being without allowing ideological debates about sexuality to weaken protective measures. Aligned with global frameworks that view women’s rights as human rights are harm reduction approaches that acknowledge political realities while centering student safety and rights. Such approaches that situate GBV prevention within the broader framework of rights and safety—rather than a moral or sexual one—are needed. Despite efforts by the Trump Administration to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education (see: Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities (Exec. Order No. 14242, 2025) and place limitations on Title IX, both the department and legislation are necessary federal mechanisms to ensure student education is free from sex discrimination, or otherwise, and violence.

Our findings also underscore that states and school districts, which lack CSE are likely to be deficient in curricular programming that support inclusive and holistic discussions of gender, racial, and other markers of identity. Still, a medically accurate and comprehensive approach to sex education should incorporate SEL, culturally responsive, and trauma-informed wrap around support systems to mitigate GBV. School counselors and social workers should offer both individualized and group support options, ensuring that affected students have access to vital mental health resources. Culturally responsive education is an educational approach that recognizes and incorporates students’ cultural backgrounds into their learning experiences (Gay, 2018), with research demonstrating that it improves student engagement and achievement, particularly among minoritized groups (Trumbull et al., 2020). This approach can help students to appreciate multiple perspectives and equip them with critical skills to build trusting relationships and the kind of self-advocacy that prevents GBV.

Similarly, in the U.S. and elsewhere, SEL aims to assist the development of child and adolescent skills needed to build healthy relationships, manage stress, and improve personal well-being. Research on U.S., and New York State SEL policy and programming for example, found that despite proven benefits, SEL policy and programs must be reviewed for inherent biases and the potential to reinforce as opposed to eliminate the underlying causes of gender discrimination and GBV (Lemke & Rogers, 2023). This research points to the need to address harmful gender scripts and power dynamics within schools in a manner that equips students with the prosocial tools needed to prevent and respond to GBV, rather than SEL solely focusing on individual emotional regulation.

Finally, trauma-informed and wraparound frameworks recognize that the way harm is acknowledged and treated influences not only victim and survivor outcomes, but also the experiences of those receiving services and the well-being of the professionals providing them (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2014). Trauma-informed sex education recognizes that multiple students have encountered trauma, and thus entails prioritizing emotional safety, consent, and empowerment, as well as respect for personal experiences, healing, and development (Fava & Bay-Cheng, 2013). Similarly, wraparound services offer comprehensive and family-driven supports for students who experience mental health and/or behavioral challenges (National Wraparound Initiative, 2025; Olson et al., 2021). By centering the histories, identities, and experiences of students and their families, the wraparound framework emphasizes the importance of context. In this vein, collaboration between school districts and GBV organizations would facilitate connections between schools and additional services, such as legal assistance, medical care, and psychological support. At the same time, periodic visits from community experts can enhance on-site support options.

To summarize, our findings reveal that the lack of federal and state-level medically accurate CSE, coupled with a paucity of GBV policies, exposes a broader societal conflict between moral conservatism and approaches grounded in science and concern for social health and well-being. Our work also underscores that SEL-focused, trauma-informed, and wraparound harm reduction strategies offer inroads to political division and temporary pathways for protection. Still, lasting, beyond surface change, demands the political will to move beyond ideological divides. Furthermore, preventing GBV cannot be separated from the delivery of medically accurate sexuality education that is comprehensive, consent-driven, and culturally responsive.

6. Conclusions

Considering the current sociopolitical landscape, our analysis examined how sex education policy and programming is implemented across the 50 U.S. states. In particular, we were interested in the role of medically accurate CSE as a mechanism to reduce GBV and as adjacent to the ideological context shaping such efforts. In mapping both the policy and “politics of sex education” landscape, we offered actionable steps, marking this study’s ability to synthesize policy analysis with practitioner-oriented recommendations for making school environments safer.

Combating GBV in K-12 schools necessitates safer classrooms with an integrated, evidence-based approach that prioritizes policy prevention, intervention, and multifaceted support. Our literature review and 50-state analysis points to an urgent need for research, as well as CSE policies and programming that transcend political divides to create safe and supportive educational environments that facilitate the elimination of GBV. Yet, given the current political and policy landscape in the United States, mandating the integration of medically accurate CSE within elementary, or even secondary curricula, is far from inclusion on any federal policy agenda.

That said, there are actionable steps that educational practitioners can take to integrate topics such as consent, healthy relationships, and respect for diversity—toward the end of identifying and preventing GBV. Establishing clear, accessible reporting protocols and confidentiality protections is essential in fostering an environment where students feel safe and supported when disclosing incidents. SEL, culturally responsive, and trauma-informed training for educators and staff is equally critical to ensure appropriate, sensitive responses to disclosures and effective intervention. Premised on a wraparound framework, collaborating with community organizations further strengthens the support network for students at a greater risk for GBV. The integration of these approaches not only will benefit those groups documented to be disproportionately affected, but will improve the overall health and well-being of the public educational system.